Camera Kit / Prime vs Zooms

kcui

So I just bought some new lenses and already I'm window shopping for new gear...The cycle begins yet again!

My long term agenda will likely be to move to full frame, and I'm trying to think of some lenses to make a well rounded kit, without overbuying and dropping too much money on 5 or 6 lenses, and only really using 3 or 4 of them. I was doing some browsing and thought of 3 lenses that I could buy that would potentially suit my needs:

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM to suit most of my wide-angle needs.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM for 70+ Probably won't have a need for much anything over 200
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L (or f/1.4) USM to fill in the gap. Even though there is no overlap I probably can do without the 15 / 20mm gaps between lenses.

Now right now I shoot primarily with my Canon 24-105 f/4L. I was thinking that between the 16-35 and 70-200, I would have my bases covered (I could use my Tokina 11-16 or grab a wide prime or anything wider than 16mm). But am I better off putting the money on a good tele prime (200mm?) rather than a zoom?

Granted this is all hypothetical and my needs might change, but for now this is just a fun thought experiment...

ThatCanonGuy

That 70-200 II is as sharp as some of the best primes. I have to say: if you have the money, it's worth the $2600 or whatever it is. That is one FANTASTIC lens

Here are some images another DGrinner took... some of them are with that lens: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=194507&highlight=baseball

eoren1

A few basic questions:
What are you planning to shoot?
What body do you have now?
How soon do you expect to jump to FF??

kcui

eoren1 wrote: »

A few basic questions:
What are you planning to shoot?
What body do you have now?
How soon do you expect to jump to FF??

Right now I'm more of nature and landscapes, but I'm trying to do more portrait type photography, or photos of live music, especially indoors.

Right now I shoot a 7D.

Will be at LEAST a year before I go FF.

Photoskipper

70-200 is the next lens for the indoor music shooting. F2.8 is the excellent choice but rather expensive. F4 will be good enough for most of cases.

ThatCanonGuy

While I love my 70-200 f4, I find that when shooting sports, I'd sometimes like to have the creamier background of the 2.8. The non-IS version can be had for around $1000 on the used market. The f4 ($600) is otherwise excellent.

photodad1

I love my 70-200 f2.8L non-IS. I use it with my Canon 7D to photograph kids soccer. The bokeh is awesome!

davev

Instead of the 70-200 f2.8, you could get a 70-200 f4is, a 24-105 f4is and a 17-40 f4.
This kit will work well with your 7D, plus it will grow with you as you go to full frame.
If you need a lens for that creamy background, buy a fast prime like the 85 f1.8 to
go along with this kit.

ThatCanonGuy

For me, I'd much rather have the 70-200 2.8 non-IS than the f4 IS. That's just me; other people are different. For my uses, IS doesn't mean much. For others, it does.

Matthew Saville

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

For me, I'd much rather have the 70-200 2.8 non-IS than the f4 IS. That's just me; other people are different. For my uses, IS doesn't mean much. For others, it does.

Yep, other people are indeed different. I wouldn't be caught dead lugging around ANY 70-200 2.8, I just don't care for the extra weight. I stick with smaller zooms, or smaller primes. But I shoot landscapes as a hobby, and weddings / portraits for my work, so that's exactly what f/4 zooms and f/1.4 primes are designed to do! :-P

Just casting my vote, and hopefully proving that personal preference is very important!

=Matt=

Photoskipper

I love my 70-200 IS F2.8 too. Although it is rather heavy, I bring it for every single trip. It is really good for "stealing shoot". This is the photo taken in China while the bride posting for her own wedding photographer. I took the shoot from 10 metres away but still sharp and clear.
Adding a 1.4X or 2X extension, I can use it for bird photos. The 25 mm tube will be good for "marco" of butterfly and dragonfly shoots.

divamum

For any kind of live music/concert shooting, f4 is just too slow IME - when I'm shooting theatre/concert, I find myself at f1.8-3.2 almost all the time, and I wouldn't want a lens slower than 2.8. IS is of mixed use in those kinds of low light situations - yes, you can use a slower shutter speed and minimise camera shake from your own hands, but it won't help at all if your subject is moving - you'll just get motion blur instead.

I'm with Matt - I'm reluctant to lug around a 70-200, although I suspect one of these years I'll probably cave just because the pictures the 70-200is gets (especially the version II) are absolutely wonderful - there's a reason it's the choice of many, many professionals out there. The things which deter me are the weight and the price, but it does add tremendous versatility and is a stunning lens.

If you want to travel lighter, the 200L 2.8 is a beautiful lens - I had one for a while (would have happily kept it if I hadn't needed the $ to fund a 135L f2, which is a better focal length for me) and if I ever find I need 200mm regularly wouldn't hesitate to get another.

As many here know, I recommend the 135L at all times for all things where one has the room to use it - it's a very, very special piece of glass and not as spendy as some of the other "magic dust" L lenses.

Which leads me to the 50mm 1.2: why? Yes, it's an L, but unless you're doing the kind of work which really *needs* that extra tickle of light and/or the special DOF it can offer, it's generally *not* considered the best choice as an all-round lens. Focus can be finicky (partly because of the crazy narrow dof at those wide apertures), but it's also just kind of a special beast from what I've read about it. Granted, I haven't used one, so stand to be corrected. That said, I will admit that the shots I've seen from it haven't wow-ed me in the way that images from (for instance) the 85 1.2 and 135 2.0 do - it's never been a lens I've lusted for, simply because the results I've seen from it haven't made me think, "Yep - that's worth paying extra for!"

For 50mm choices are a bit odd. There's nifty fifty (great on a budget but not good for low light), the expensive 1.2, and then the Canon 50mm 1.4. The 50mm 1.4 may not be a "magic" lens, but it's competent, fast to focus, and can be found for not much money. Best of all currrent choices for 50's with a Canon is probably the Sigma 50 1.4 - it's a little more than the Canon version (although not unreasonably so), and shots I've seen from it have smooth bokeh blur, and also that "sparkle" that you seem to get from the best lenses - it's definitely worth checking out, IMO.

HTH!

Photoskipper

divamum wrote: »

For any kind of live music/concert shooting, f4 is just too slow IME - when I'm shooting theatre/concert, I find myself at f1.8-3.2 almost all the time, and I wouldn't want a lens slower than 2.8. IS is of mixed use in those kinds of low light situations - yes, you can use a slower shutter speed and minimise camera shake from your own hands, but it won't help at all if your subject is moving - you'll just get motion blur instead.

I'm with Matt - I'm reluctant to lug around a 70-200, although I suspect one of these years I'll probably cave just because the pictures the 70-200is gets (especially the version II) are absolutely wonderful - there's a reason it's the choice of many, many professionals out there. The things which deter me are the weight and the price, but it does add tremendous versatility and is a stunning lens.

If you want to travel lighter, the 200L 2.8 is a beautiful lens - I had one for a while (would have happily kept it if I hadn't needed the $ to fund a 135L f2, which is a better focal length for me) and if I ever find I need 200mm regularly wouldn't hesitate to get another.

As many here know, I recommend the 135L at all times for all things where one has the room to use it - it's a very, very special piece of glass and not as spendy as some of the other "magic dust" L lenses.

Which leads me to the 50mm 1.2: why? Yes, it's an L, but unless you're doing the kind of work which really *needs* that extra tickle of light and/or the special DOF it can offer, it's generally *not* considered the best choice as an all-round lens. Focus can be finicky (partly because of the crazy narrow dof at those wide apertures), but it's also just kind of a special beast from what I've read about it. Granted, I haven't used one, so stand to be corrected. That said, I will admit that the shots I've seen from it haven't wow-ed me in the way that images from (for instance) the 85 1.2 and 135 2.0 do - it's never been a lens I've lusted for, simply because the results I've seen from it haven't made me think, "Yep - that's worth paying extra for!"

For 50mm choices are a bit odd. There's nifty fifty (great on a budget but not good for low light), the expensive 1.2, and then the Canon 50mm 1.4. The 50mm 1.4 may not be a "magic" lens, but it's competent, fast to focus, and can be found for not much money. Best of all currrent choices for 50's with a Canon is probably the Sigma 50 1.4 - it's a little more than the Canon version (although not unreasonably so), and shots I've seen from it have smooth bokeh blur, and also that "sparkle" that you seem to get from the best lenses - it's definitely worth checking out, IMO.

HTH!

Nice to have the prime 200 F2.8 for concerts but zoom provides more flexibility. F4 is slower but with the recent improvement of ISO, the noise level is neglectable even at 1600 or higher. It may help to compensate the exposure time.

divamum

Photoskipper wrote: »

Nice to have the prime 200 F2.8 for concerts but zoom provides more flexibility. F4 is slower but with the recent improvement of ISO, the noise level is neglectable even at 1600 or higher. It may help to compensate the exposure time.

I think if you shooot full frame that's certainly true - clean ISO 3200 and 6400 on the 5dII gives you a lot more flexibility regarding aperture. On a cropper (I shoot with a 7d), I don't want to go above iso2000 if I don't have to (although the 7d does well at that level, and even 3200, with a properly-exposed shot), so an F4 lens would be a problem for me in the venues that I shoot - others may have different needs/situations where it wouldn't be problematic at all.

You're right, though - with the advances in ISO this particular point becomes less and less of an issue as far as shutter speed etc, although faster lenses still have benefits in other ways: wider apertures will allow less obtrusive, blurred-out backgrounds, and 2.8 lenses allow the AF crosshairs to be more responsive, so you get faster, more accurate focus-acquisition in low light situations.

Matthew Saville

divamum wrote: »

For any kind of live music/concert shooting, f4 is just too slow IME - when I'm shooting theatre/concert, I find myself at f1.8-3.2 almost all the time, and I wouldn't want a lens slower than 2.8.

I guess I just shoot in well-lit theaters, cause I've been doing just fine at f/2.8 and even f/4 on a *crop* sensor for the past few years, so f/4 on a full-frame sensor would be super. But these are musicals and stage plays that I'm photographing, with decently bright (although still extremely tricky and dynamic) lighting...

I'm sure that concerts and other stage things can get much, much darker. If I photographed concerts for a living, I'd most likely just suck it up, work out some more, and pony up for a D3s and 70-200... And an 85 1.4, and a 135 f/2, etc. etc. :-D


=Matt=

divamum

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I guess I just shoot in well-lit theaters, cause I've been doing just fine at f/2.8 and even f/4 on a *crop* sensor for the past few years, so f/4 on a full-frame sensor would be super. But these are musicals and stage plays that I'm photographing, with decently bright (although still extremely tricky and dynamic) lighting...

I'm sure that concerts and other stage things can get much, much darker. If I photographed concerts for a living, I'd most likely just suck it up, work out some more, and pony up for a D3s and 70-200... And an 85 1.4, and a 135 f/2, etc. etc. :-D =Matt=

My main concert gig is in a venue with a poorly-lit small stage, and the auditorium itself has dark blue walls which reduces the light banging around even further. Others I do are in schools (not colleges!) where stages are seldom well-lit. So, yeah, it probably is worse for me than in venues with nicely washed, professionally-focused lighting than I usually get to shoot! It's always bliss when I get to shoot a well-lit show (especially when it's aiming for naturalistic thus reducing the dynamic range & questionable WB's a bit). But even with that, I like the wider apertures for the effects as much as lumens - and I know you do too, Matt, since you lurrrve your Sigma 50-150!!! :giggle

Matthew Saville

divamum wrote: »

My main concert gig is in a venue with a poorly-lit small stage, and the auditorium itself has dark blue walls which reduces the light banging around even further. Others I do are in schools (not colleges!) where stages are seldom well-lit. So, yeah, it probably is worse for me than in venues with nicely washed, professionally-focused lighting than I usually get to shoot! It's always bliss when I get to shoot a well-lit show (especially when it's aiming for naturalistic thus reducing the dynamic range & questionable WB's a bit). But even with that, I like the wider apertures for the effects as much as lumens - and I know you do too, Matt, since you lurrrve your Sigma 50-150!!! :giggle

Actually, for theater (since the edges and background of 99% of the photos are pitch black anyways) ...I've been using my beloved Sigma 50-150 2.8 on my D700 now for theater work, with MUCH success! The vignetting is more like just "really bad falloff" at 150mm, and only requires a crop to about 9-10 megapixels at 50mm, so I just leave the camera in FX mode and rock it out. It's SOOO awesome to shoot with such a light and small combination, I just love it! Also, I really appreciate the 50mm wide end on full-frame much more than I miss the difference between 150mm and 200mm on the telephoto end. Because I shoot during rehearsals, so I have free roam of the front area at the foot of the stage usually... :-)

If Nikon made a 50-150 2.8 VR for full-frame, I'd buy it even faster than I'd buy a 70-200 f/4 VR. Unless it was just as heavy as the 70-200 2.8, then I'd probably pass. I'll be checking out the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS too, as soon as I hear of a Sigma Rep hitting up any local shops, to see if the full-frame vignetting is any better / worse. :-)

=Matt=

divamum

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Actually, for theater (since the edges and background of 99% of the photos are pitch black anyways)

I frequently add vignetting to these shots in post anyway - it can sometimes make a crappy light design look like it was intentional by making it seem the lights were focused to fall away like that instead of just badly positioned!!

Even though I am loving - LOVING - the copy of the 24-70L I wound up with (which in conjunction with the 135L makes for a great set of theatre lenses since, like you, I shoot rehearsals and can move around), I'll be scoping out the new version of the 50-150 once it hits the market. Maybe this time they'll make it work as well with a Canon as it does with a Nikon

Brett1000

kcui wrote: »

So I just bought some new lenses and already I'm window shopping for new gear...The cycle begins yet again!

My long term agenda will likely be to move to full frame, and I'm trying to think of some lenses to make a well rounded kit, without overbuying and dropping too much money on 5 or 6 lenses, and only really using 3 or 4 of them. I was doing some browsing and thought of 3 lenses that I could buy that would potentially suit my needs:

Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM to suit most of my wide-angle needs.
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM for 70+ Probably won't have a need for much anything over 200
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L (or f/1.4) USM to fill in the gap. Even though there is no overlap I probably can do without the 15 / 20mm gaps between lenses.

Now right now I shoot primarily with my Canon 24-105 f/4L. I was thinking that between the 16-35 and 70-200, I would have my bases covered (I could use my Tokina 11-16 or grab a wide prime or anything wider than 16mm). But am I better off putting the money on a good tele prime (200mm?) rather than a zoom?

Granted this is all hypothetical and my needs might change, but for now this is just a fun thought experiment...

yes, a nice new Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM
fun thinking about it !

GoldenGatePool

Hi guys, I'm gonna jumpin and ask a question what does the "II" designate?
two stage IS?

Brett1000 wrote: »

yes, a nice new Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM
fun thinking about it !

ziggy53

GoldenGatePool wrote: »

Hi guys, I'm gonna jumpin and ask a question what does the "II" designate?
two stage IS?

The Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8 IS USM II has a new optical formula with better edge and corner performance, especially important for FF body use.

A very nice review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

jhefti

I'm with Divamum on the 50/f1.2. The f1.4 version works great, and I rarely need any wider aperture. In terms of economics, you can get both a 50/f1.4 and a 135/f2.0 for less that the 50/f1.2, and have two really wonderful lenses.

On the 70-200/f2.8, it is without question my favorite and most-used lens. Yeah, it's heavy and pricey, but I use it for sports and theatre, and couldn't be happier with the results.

Overfocused

Either 70-200 won't disappoint you. They're both prime quality in a zoom package, edge to edge! Honestly for 1 stop vs. a couple more L lenses, I'd take the F/4 and a couple other nice L's.

Matthew Saville

jhefti wrote: »

I'm with Divamum on the 50/f1.2. The f1.4 version works great, and I rarely need any wider aperture. In terms of economics, you can get both a 50/f1.4 and a 135/f2.0 for less that the 50/f1.2, and have two really wonderful lenses.

On the 70-200/f2.8, it is without question my favorite and most-used lens. Yeah, it's heavy and pricey, but I use it for sports and theatre, and couldn't be happier with the results.

Amen. I know it's not exactly apples to apples, but for the price of a new 50 1.2, I could buy a used 28 1.8, 500 1.4, and 85 1.8 or 100 2.0... All are great lenses, nice and sharp. :-)

=Matt=

ThatCanonGuy

I'd rather have a 500 1.4 than a 50 1.2

Sorry, couldn't resist :P

Overfocused

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I'd rather have a 500 1.4 than a 50 1.2

Sorry, couldn't resist :P

That'd be... heavy.. to say the least

ThatCanonGuy

Yeah, probably bigger and more expensive than the 1200 5.6

pmaxwell

I have Canon's 70-200 F4 on a 40D and while it is a phenomenal lens in the right situation. Paired with the 40D it just isn't getting the job done for my daughters indoor sports. I'm not sure if I should replace it to get the F2.8 or the 40D to get better/higher ISO performance in those conditions (oh and a better autofocus system for the job).

But either way you go on the 70-200 they are a fabulous set of lenses.

Overfocused

pmaxwell wrote: »

I have Canon's 70-200 F4 on a 40D and while it is a phenomenal lens in the right situation. Paired with the 40D it just isn't getting the job done for my daughters indoor sports. I'm not sure if I should replace it to get the F2.8 or the 40D to get better/higher ISO performance in those conditions (oh and a better autofocus system for the job).

But either way you go on the 70-200 they are a fabulous set of lenses.

In your situation you'd be MUCH better off buying a 5D Mark II or a 7D

pmaxwell

Overfocused wrote: »

In your situation you'd be MUCH better off buying a 5D Mark II or a 7D

I tend to agree, but I'm waiting for prices and availability to stabilize (and potentially the 5D MKIII ):D

ThatCanonGuy

In your situation I would probably buy a 70-200 2.8, or, if I could live with it, a 100 f2 or 135 f2L prime.

If I ever buy a 5DII (I may sometime), it'll be after the 5D3 comes out. I'll grab a Mark II for $1000.